The Function of Art

After reading several philosophers’ theories on the definition of art, one thing I have taken notice of is there lack of mentioning an important element which makes art definable as art. This important element which philosophers have seemingly failed to mention in any of their numerous theories is the primary function of the object or form. From my perspective, the primary function of art is to please the viewer. Pleasure, in this case, does not particularly mean enjoyment but rather to bring about emotions or thoughts in such a way that it is admirable. Many great art works have been produced that would be described as gruesome or disturbing, which one would not always consider to be pleasurable, but it is still considered art because it arouses this intense emotion of disgust or is admirable for its detail and ability to convey a certain content. In earlier class periods we discussed how objects made in the image of daily things not considered to be art are considered art. For example, a spoon is not usually considered a work of art, but when a life size sculpture of a spoon is molded and painted in a very realistic way, it is unarguably considered to be art. The primary function of the original spoon is not for aestetically pleasing purposes, but for eating purposes, while the primary function of the sculpted spoon is depicting details and is clearly designed to be aesthetically pleasing. Why do you think philosophers have failed to mention this seemingly important element in their attempts to define art? Do you think that it was purposely left of the definition because it was assumed to be understood or is there another reason which philosophers would intentionally leave it out of their attempted definitions?